A633.9.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.9.3.RB – Polyarchy Reflections

            This week we are reminded that most leadership models have the assumption of oligarchy – a few leaders apply leadership over many followers. If polyarchy is rapidly replacing the old oligarchy assumptions, does this make these old leadership models redundant? We are then asked to reflect on traditional leadership from the perspective of complex adaptive leadership and address the implications and how they will affect each of us as leaders in the future? Finally, we are to consider how this will impact future strategy.

            To begin with, I honestly have to question just how “fast” old oligarchical assumptions are being replaced by polyarchical leadership model in most organizations. I believe this is an exception rather than the rule. Even though organizations are becoming more complex, there are many companies that still cling to the old mannerisms. Over time, we hope they will realize the value of looking at how to operate differently in order to be more effective and competitive. However, it takes a long while to turn a large ship and, I believe, is what educational programs such as ours are all about.

            Nevertheless, some organizations evaluating the benefit of moving towards a different way dealing with their complexities may begin to merge certain concepts and ideas into their current system. Obolensky (2010) noted that there are more traditional leadership models that do quite well in incorporating complex adaptive leadership such as Greenleaf’s Servant Leadership, Hersey/Blanchard’s Situational Leadership, and John Adair’s Task-Team-Individual model; then the newer models such as Collin’s Level 5 Leadership and Badaracco’s Quiet Leadership take things to a new level of understanding by their “new ways of looking at leadership” (p. 201).

            Therefore, the answer is no – the old models are not redundant because it is possible to overlay new concepts onto them in order to maximize the benefits of operating from a place of complex adaptive leadership. Just as the example in Appendix B of our textbook Obolensky (2010) lays out Adair’s Task-Team-Individual model and how it nicely dovetails with complex adaptive leadership model – this was a fine example. Moreover, Obolensky (2010) comments, “An understanding of how polyarchy can work will differ in each organization, as each one has its own experience and unique perspective. But as has been shown, traditional leadership models and practices can be seen in a new light” (p. 206).

            It is helpful for each of us – as either emerging or current leaders – to understand that if we are able to apply the Four + Four principles (as we learned in Chapter 6 with the 4-plus-4 model for leading complexity) in any given situation, then we will be better equipped to deal with paradox, uncertainty, and complexity, regardless of which leadership model we are attempting to execute. Also, as Obolensky (2010) points out, “The key difference is that under a polyarchy the leader ensures the process rather than doing the process, which is implied under an oligarchic assumption” (p. 203).

            Future strategies will be impacted by the understanding that in order to thrive in the newer and fast emerging complex environments, the sooner we can embrace the concept the better. Understanding organizations, people involved with the organizations, as well as the process of operating within the organization involves a dynamic process that requires a new perspective. Obolensky (2007) posits, “Polyarchy does not assume an overthrow of leaders, or an eradication of oligarchy. It is an evolutionary step on from oligarchy, even though it may seem revolutionary. If we assume oligarchy (traditional leadership) has been around for thousands of years, and this was preceded by anarchy (chaos), then polyarchy can be seen as an evolutionary synthesis of the two.”

            Now that we are more familiar with this term and process, we must put into practice what we have learned and try to approach our roles as leaders – and yes, even our roles as followers – in a fresh light. On a final note, Obolensky (2007) commented in an essay he wrote that he does not see leadership as “something done solely by leaders but as a seemingly chaotic dynamic involving all. Leadership does not have to be, nor perhaps should it be, the function of someone specifically designated as holding formal office.” It is like that now that we know there is a better way to lead, we are almost obligated to put it into practice and see it through.

References

Obolensky, N. (2007). Chaos Leadership and Polyarchy – countering leadership stress? Essay for University of Exeter Centre for Leadership Studies: Extended Leadership Essay. Retrieved from https://business-school.exeter.ac.uk/documents/papers/leadership/395.pdf

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (2^nd Edition). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

A633.8.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.8.3.RB – How Do Coaches Help?

            I came across this idea about coaching, and I wondered to what end I felt this was true and also the kind of value that coaches are able to provide. To be an executive coach, it is necessary to know clients are the first and best experts capable of solving their own problems and achieving their own ambitions, that is precisely the main reason why clients are motivated to call on a coach. When clients bring important issues to a coach, they already made a complete inventory of their personal or professional issues and of all possible options. Clients have already tried working out their issues alone, and have not succeeded.

            It takes a certain level of skill and will, for someone to decide they want to take the next step in seeking improvement to reach a goal through coaching. Perhaps someone has tried everything and not found their ideal success. But what if it was not a matter of trying, but coming to a giant fork in the road. What if there are two or more possible directions one could go, seeking a coach to work out an expert strategy in order to yield the best possible outcome would surely be better than trial and error.

            While, deep down we probably know the best way to solve problems and achieve our ambitions it takes collaboration to tap into our full potential. Considering the Johari Window model momentarily, it is impossible to have a full sense of self-awareness. A coach can assist with minimizing our blind spots, areas known to others but not known to ourselves. “A coach helps people understand what they need to change in order to attain their professional goals” (Von Hoffman, 1999, para. 5).

            Coaching is a vital part of leadership and has a significant impact on strategy. How can you expect someone to have the behaviors and tools you desire if they are not developed? “Coaching can have a positive impact on performance, but it is not a short-term process. Coaching prospects should be people you think can be even greater assets to the organization than they already are” (Von Hoffman, 1999, para. 11). As coaching is an action-oriented process it enables individuals to grow through each stage of the process to reach increased levels of accountability and problem-solving capacities.

            Additionally, Nick Obolensky (2010) discusses attractors, which are a plot of action on a phase space diagram, which lays down the road map for leadership. "They give us a flow or dynamic that combines strategies in a powerful way" (Obolensky, 2010, p. 166). Coaching always looks at the present and goes forward. Coaching leaders and potential leaders focuses on what to do now; not what went wrong in the past, and takes advantage of some of the benefits of coaching. This includes the ability to be more flexible and adaptable on a consistent basis, which is vital to the skills in an organization's strategy for success, especially in today's ever-changing environment.

            In many organizations coaching adds value. “While some employees who achieve new goals will leave, far more will feel greater loyalty to an organization that is interested in their professional development” (von Hoffman, 1999, para. 10). Coaching in my organization is not so much a '"one size fits all" approach as it is a holistic approach. On a small scale, each of us has personal and professional problems to overcome and/or achieve, and in terms of our day-to-day operations, we are all accountable for the expected, measurable outcomes of our performance. When we miss the mark on something, we discuss it either in a one-on one setting, or in a round-table discussion, where all of us are able to take advantage of a learning/coaching opportunity. Coaching is a well-defined process containing specific start points and end points, however our coaching is not as easy to quantify. It is not defined by a typical coaching time frame, more so an ongoing fine-tuning of our processes.

References

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (2^nd Edition). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

Von Hoffman, C. (1999). Coaching: The ten killer myths. Harvard Management Update, 4(1), 4  

A633.7.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.7.3.RB – Leader Follower Relationship

            According to the guidelines for the assessment in chapter ten, the ideal score in each column is four and is based on strategies one should employ in various situations. Each strategy has either people focus or a goal focus. Strategy 1 (S1): Tell (Low People, High Goal) is as simple as showing someone how to do something. Strategy 2 (S2): Sell (High People, High Goal) is where the benefits of a certain proposal are laid out in order to achieve buy-in. Strategy 3 (S3): Involve (High People, Low Goal) is used when a leader wants to hold back to see if the follower can discover the solution. Strategy 4 (S4): Devolve (Low People, Low Goal) is where the leader is hands off and practicing in a ‘wu wei’ state of inaction (Obolensky, 2010).    

            My score for S1 was five, S2 was two, S3 was seven, and S4 was two. Based on my scores, I tend to hold back and let others try to discover the solutions. The results show, I may be working too hard, which means I am not letting go well enough either. Additionally, scores show my tendency to be direct in my approach. I am not surprised by the results at all. My approach has always been very direct and, at times, I know that makes me come off as unfriendly and a bit cold. However, this is not my intention but I do not sugar code words. I prefer the truth to diplomacy. I am also not surprised by the assessment specifying, I work too hard and do not let go as well as I could. Many times, I have bitten off more than I can chew in an effort to be “everything to everybody.” Hence, I have learned the hard lesson, that in the end the only affected person will be myself.

            Over the course of the last six weeks, several things stand out as important revelations. I have always had a deep respect for upper-level leaders but I have also pushed and gotten upset if leaders did not know something. To me, it has always been important to have leaders who know what they are doing. This class has helped reinforce the fact that we are all human and, as such, we will make mistakes and not have all the answers—but that is okay. I have also never really given much thought to the importance of followers in an organization. I have always aspired to be a good follower but as Kelley (1988) suggested in his article, “followership dominates our lives and organizations, but not our thinking, because our preoccupation with leadership keeps us from considering the nature and importance of followers” (p. 143). I am now more cognizant of this role and its importance. Most important of all, has been the idea of balancing opposites by thinking in terms of both/and rather than either/or.

            In terms of my future leadership goals and objectives, these concepts will help into leading me to a future that is flexible and adaptable as I continue to evolve personally and professionally. I will continue to work on letting go more. I will also accept my humanness with humility and the understanding that setting a good example for those around me is one of the most important things I can do. 

References

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (2^nd Edition). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

A633.6.4.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.6.4.RB – Circle of Leadership

            It is interesting to consider the amount of interaction a leader needs with subordinates and the amount of interaction subordinates need with a leader. According to Obolensky (2010), this depends almost entirely upon leadership behavior (p. 159). He elaborated by saying, “We are programmed to see leadership in a hierarchic way and, as transactional analysis suggests, the way a leader acts will program the way that followers operate; and vice versa” (pp. 159-160).

            Obolensky (2010) presented a typical vicious circle for leaders (p. 162). He said that this vicious circle is entered into by the behaviors of both the leader and the follower. For instance, a follower that asks for advice is considered by the leader to have low skill and this reduces the leader’s confidence in the follower. This in turn gets the leader to take a more hands-on approach with the follower, which lowers the follower’s confidence, and this makes the follower think he has to defer to the leader more and the cycle repeats itself.

            This vicious circle for leaders (Obolensky, 2010) has happened while working as a medical assistant and in other organizations that I have work for too. In fact, it has happened to me. I was approached my team lead to ask how to cast patients for custom orthotics. Her immediate reaction was that of hesitation and proceeded to show me how to get it done. This lead me to believe that in the future, I needed to get her approval before if in doubt or pretty much anything I did. 

            The effects of being in the vicious circle are positive and negative. One positive effect is that the leader sees that the follower can follow directions. A negative effect is that the follower becomes hesitant and does not take more initiative (Obolensky, 2010). How does a person, leader or follower, break the vicious circle? One way the circle can be broken is by having leaders institute and practice upward and downward communication. 

            This week discussion provided some unique perspectives on the different organizations that our Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Strategic Leadership class employed. Collectively, we discussed upward and downward communication in our organizations while discussing upward leadership, and how it was or was not practiced in our organizations. I also found it interesting that my husband and I, both had different perspectives of our own organization, but not surprising I guess when we acknowledged that we work across two different fields, and the cultures of each are different. The perspectives from fellow associates at work also enlightened me, as I challenged them to discuss upward leadership’s effectiveness in terms with our roles as medical assistants within the medical facility team. 

            The insights provided by the students illustrate the effects of the vicious circle on organizations. Everyone’s perspectives vary, and although, I find myself, as the only student working in the medical field; I can also distinguish similarities when it comes to the negative impact that leaders can relate if not properly prepared. The same comes with followers, as not all followers are good followers. One aspect of the solution needed to stay out of the vicious circle is with effective followership. The Harvard Business Review (1988) stated that effective followers think for themselves, carry out their duties and assignments with energy and assertiveness, they are risk takers, self-starters, and independent problem solvers (pp. 143-144). Additionally, suggested that, “Effective followers are well-balanced and responsible adults who can succeed without strong leadership” (Kelley, 1988, p. 144).

            Followers can also be leaders. Within my organization, subordinates often became situational leaders and leaders often became situational followers. It really depends on the situation and how others perceived each other. When in the role of a leader, leaders are effective when others acknowledge them as such by listening seriously to their ideas, valuing and following their suggestions and turning to them for advice (“How to Lead when You’re not the Boss,” 2000).

            To create a better circle in my organization that would promote followership and leadership at the lower levels, I would institute educational training that brings the issue to light. I would also practice leadership and followership to provide an example for subordinates, peers, and upper leadership. An excellent way to create a better circle is to institute the type of upward leadership described by Useem (2001). Useem stated that, a common element among those who successfully lead up is a driving urge to make things happen, and an unflinching willingness to take charge when not fully in command. As suggested by Useem (2001), such leadership can be inspired when executives are willing to take the time to create the right culture.

            It is important for members of an organization, especially the leaders to understand leadership and followership. Obolensky, (2010) said, “We can see the followership side of the equation is as important as the leadership side” (p. 163). He said, the two combine into a dynamic duo, which can get better results in a more sustained way than the typical oligarchic approach. After all, aren’t better results the goal?

References

How to lead when you're not the boss. (Cover story). (2000). Harvard Management Update, 5(3), 1 -3. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=efd04f41-eb97-4688-9a26-0aa3801b1e36%40sessionmgr4004&vid=1&hid=4107

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (2^nd Edition). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

Upward leadership: How to engage your leaders. (2015). PR Newswire. Retrieved from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/upward-leadership-how-to-engage-your-leaders-61998277.html

Useem, M. (2001). Mastering people management: The ups and downs of leading people. Financial Times. Retrieved from http://karamah.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/10/UseemUpsandDowns.pdf